
AND THE 


REDRESS OF OTHER GRIEVANCES, 


TO THE 


CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. 


For copies of this Potition on cheaper paper, address the Publisher. 
Twenty*flve or moro, two cents each. 



PRICE, FIVE CENTS. 










PETITION TO CONGRESS 


NINE MILLIONS OP CITIZENS 

FOR THE 

ABOLITION of the “POLITICAL MACHINE,” 

AND THE REDRESS OF OTHER GRIETANCES. 


d. o. mcmillan, 

KINGSTON, N. Y. 


Copyright 1878, by D. C. McMillan. 


To the Senate and the House of Bepresentatives of the United 
States : 

We, the five millions of citizens of the United States engaged in 
agricultural occupations, and the four millions of merchants and 
workingmen engaged in various pursuits connected with manufac¬ 
turing and mining industries, trade, transportation and personal 
service, under Article I. of the amendments to the Constitution re¬ 
spectfully petition to your honorable bodies for a redress of our 
grievances, and desire to set forth the following facts:— * 

During the past ten years, in nearly every State in the Union, 
struggling under onerous taxation which is eating out our sub¬ 
stance, we have been vainly trying to better our condition 
through the exercise of the ballot in the choice of honest and 
competent public rulers. Our efforts, in the main, have been futile. 
The mortgages upon our farms have been increasing ; the rents to 
our landlords are high ; the value of our crops is being reduced; 
the wages of our sweat are scarcely sufficient for our subsistence ; 
and a portion of the time the wheels of commerce, which give us 
employment, have been clogged, and we are forced upon the world, 





2 


/far* 



g from door to door in search of work, subjected to the gibes 
nsults attendant upon our unfortunate condition. 

Airing this period we have seen Congress voting away subsidies 
-appropriations to immense corporations already enriched by its 

/ors ; large salaries to office-holders, building huge public works 
jr the benefit of architects, contractors, and speculators; increasing 
the number of public servants; paying an army of marshals to at¬ 
tend elections conducted under State authority—all apparently for 
the purpose of establishing the influence of individual members 
with the persons receiving these benefits. Even now strong 
lobbies are at its doors, and vast schemes of internal improvement 
for the Southern States are awaiting the sanction of your honorable 
Congress, while the Scotts, Vanderbilts and Goulds are appealing 
for additional means for public oppression in asking the increase of 
the army of the country. 

To gain relief from these burdens we have trusted the Demo¬ 
cratic and the Eepublican party; we have demanded change, and our 
votes have secured it. Yet our debts have not diminished, and our 
grievances have increased, while our efforts for reform indicate a 
desperation which is fitly described in the language of thousands of 
our number who feel that no change can be for the worse. 

In California and Oregon we banded ourselves together as Inde¬ 
pendents and Workingmen; in the New England States as Labor 
Beformers; in the South as Democratic Independents, and in the 
West as Grangers; and whether successful or defeated, little has been 
gained by our efforts. Many of us have joined a new organization 
called the Nationals, and while we all sympathize with some of the 
views of that party, we are not unmindful of the obstacles to the 
formation of a third political force. Our previous experience has 
shown us that when success is likely to crown our efforts the 
machinery of our organization is seized by the very elements we 
desire to exclude, and adroit politicians use our party for the pur¬ 
pose of plundering us more. We are deceived and betrayed when 
in the majority, and when in the minority the temptation to choose 
the least of two evils impels us to cast our votes for the older polit¬ 
ical organizations. 

Though outnumbering ten to one the few into whose hands our 
property is passing, and though generally agreed upon the remedies 
for our grievances, yet there seems to be no means afforded by the 


3 


ballot through which we can give our voice an effective expression. 
Although in every community we are able to select hundreds of 
upright citizens to whom we would willingly confide our public 
trusts, yet upon the day of election we find ourselves compelled by 
force of circumstances to make a choice between only two men for 
each office, both of whom by large expenditure of money have pur¬ 
chased the privilege of representing our parties, and have been se¬ 
lected by interested agencies through manipulation, deception, 
trickery, and bribery. Under such circumstances thousands of us 
refuse to vote, and many, having little preference between the two 
candidates, are constrained to yield to the temptations they offer and 
barter our votes for money. Denied a fair and equal voice in the 
nominations, no good reason exists why, year after year, we should 
dance at the beck of politicians and invest their xiroceedings with a 
dignity they do not deserve by attending elections in which our 
voice is negative rather than positive. Seeing little value in the 
franchise, many are gradually abandoningits use, and all are agreed 
;hat the expense attending the exercise of the suffrage might better 
be saved so long as we are denied an affirmative voice in public af¬ 
fairs, and are limited to the choice of one of the two men, both of 
whom hope to make as much money as they can out of us and to 
help their respective friends to do the same thing. 

If your honorable bodies feel that we are sufficiently represented 
in the caucus and convention, a great expense might be saved to us, 
your constituents, by the repeal of all election laws relating to the 
election of the President of the United States and the members of 
Congress. The expense of party machinery is paid by the contrac¬ 
tors, lobbyists, office-holders, monopolists, bankers and railroad 
kings, who manage it in their interests ; and action by your body 
permitting elections to be conducted in the same way would save 
the people the expense and inconvenience of deciding between the 
respective claims of these agencies on the day of our so-called elec¬ 
tion. 

To conform the elections to the method of nominations, your hon¬ 
orable Congress might require by legislation that after nominations 
are made, other delegates should be elected by promiscuous caucus, 
attended by Democrats, Republicans, aliens, repeaters, minors, con¬ 
victs, and all passers-by, the law of brute force alone to prevail; such 
delegates to make the election in accord with their own supreme 


4 


will. Under such a system of exercising their voice, the people 
would be relieved of the necessity of attending* elections as they now 
are of attending the caucuses, and the expense of election machinery 
would be saved to our overtaxed property. As the officers of the 
Government are nominated in this way, which nomination is the 
election so far as the party is concerned, no good reason would seem 
to exist why elections should not be held in precisely the same 
manner. 

If such a proposition be thought absurd for elections , the system 
is no less so for nominations ; and your petitioners would humbly 
ask that the exercise of the franchise may be rendered valuable. 
We would, therefore, respectfully petition : 

That a system of elections for Congressmen and Presi¬ 
dent BE ADOPTED WHICH WILL GIVE THE PEOPLE THE SAME VOICE 
IN THE NOMINATION OF PERSONS FOR OFFICE THAT THEY HAVE IN 
THE ELECTION; THAT THEY MAY BE PROTECTED IN THE CAUCUS BY 
THE ELECTION LAWS, AND THAT THEIR VOTES CAST DIRECT FOR CAN¬ 
DIDATES MAY BE FAIRLY COUNTED. 

The forefathers of your petitioners established the electoral col¬ 
lege for the election of President, so that he might be independent 
of interference by members of Congress. The Constitution said 
that no member of Congress should be a member of the electoral 
college; in fact, it excluded all office-holders under the Government. 
The electors, as your honorable body well knows, were to meet to¬ 
gether and pick out, after careful discussion, the very best man for 
the high office of Chief Magistrate. If the President was so selected, 
and the electors were honest in their choice, and obeyed the wishes 
of the people, we would now enjoy the benefits of good government, 
so far as the Executive patronage is concerned. This patronage is 
very large, as your petitioners have reason to know, as if extends to 
every appointment under the United States Government. 

Unfortunately for your petitioners, the electoral system miscar¬ 
ried. The electors did not select the candidate at all after the first 
few elections; and in 1824 the Congressional caucus enjoyed that 
privilege. The Congressmen excluded from the electoral college 
performed its duties outside, and thus nullified the Constitution. 
Dividing itself into two parts, representing the two parties, Con¬ 
gress selected, or nominated, both candidates for President, and the 
people could not vote for a third candidate without throwing the 


election into the very Congress which made the nomination. There 
was no need of discussion about candidates in the electoral college, 
when Congress assumed this authority, and the electors became an 
assembly of automata. 

The people, though their hands were tied, rebelled; and, to 
make matters worse, Congress failing to give them a proper system 
of nominations, the politicians established one of their own. For 
the nomination of President, they instituted the national conven¬ 
tions. The Senators and Congressmen, to whom the President had 
formerly owed his nomination directly, still retained their influence. 
The monopolists could now enter into the scheme and manage this 
new machinery. If they wanted tariff protection, all they had to do 
was to combine and use their influence in the caucus of the leading 
party in some of the Congressional districts, and thus they could 
own the Congressmen. The office-holders, excluded from the elec¬ 
toral college, now became valuable ; for a national convention 
would not be recognized without their presence. The Congressmen 
who wanted a renomination demanded of the President a portion 
of the patronage, which insured to him the necessary instrument¬ 
alities. His personal influence with the monopolists he favored 
enabled him to enforce his demand. If the President refused, the 
capitalists could frustrate his ambitions and destroy his influence 
in Congress. The power of this combination of a hundred thousand 
office-holders, a thousand monopolists—greedily grasping for sub¬ 
sidies, for tariffs, for banking privileges, involving the expenditure 
or control of hundreds of millions of dollars—centralized upon small 
political conventions, composed in large part of these very office¬ 
holders and monopolists—the money-power of the country—can be 
but feebly described; and when both parties have persisted so long 
in presenting candidates in this manner, your petitioners feel a 
sense of congratulation that this great and domineering oligarchy 
has permitted them to retain so long the little possessions they hold. 

It is quite needless for your petitioners to describe this machine¬ 
ry, so open to the designs of the few who have the means to pur¬ 
chase active effort in their behalf. The convention is a small body. 
Its members vote secretly, and are not held accountable for what 
they do. They may vote for the wisest statesman or for the most 
dishonest demagogue, and the people would not be the wiser. 
They may take money for .their votes, or, as Benton says, receive 


6 


the promise of office. All we know is that sometimes they travel a 
very great way to perform a personal part of which nobody ever 
hears. 

No laws exist excluding Republicans from Democratic, or Dem¬ 
ocrats from Republican primaries, to say how many times and in 
how many places they shall vote; aliens have all the privileges of 
citizens; and even women are afforded a conclusive answer to all 
their appeals for suffrage, for here the law will not deny them the 
right. 

Your petitioners can do no more than state these facts: that we 
are peaceable citizens attempting to use the franchise properly ; 
that we desire to attend and participate in the primaries, but owing 
to the disorders, riots, confusion, false counting, repeating, bribery, 
and other unpleasant surroundings, we find it exceedingly difficult 
to do so. Nor can we conceive of any useful purpose to be sub¬ 
served thereby. If our votes are counted, even when only our par¬ 
ty votes, we only elect a delegate usually pledged in advance to 
some person unknown to us, and who may represent the very pow¬ 
er we desire to oppose ; and we shall never be the wiser, for he will 
vote in secret. 

The vast majority of your petitioners have, therefore, abandoned 
these assemblies and left them under the control of these purely 
selfish agencies. When delegates are elected at the primary, who, 
in turn elect others to an assembly convention, which in turn ap¬ 
points others to a State convention, which then appoints others to a 
national convention, there is not one of your petitioners who be¬ 
lieves that he has exercised any influence in sendiug the national 
delegate to make a nomination for President. Subjected to this 
process of filtration, no particle of the original substance is permit¬ 
ted to penetrate the convention, and the act of that body becomes 
the aggregate result of the operation of the individual wills of its 
delegates, subjected to no restraints, and exposed to the gravest 
temptations. 

Your petitioners have great affection for popular institutions, yet 
it need not be wondered that in the minds of many of them, mon¬ 
archical ideas are taking root, for, as moderate men, having aban¬ 
doned these stormy primary assemblies, they feel it a small mat¬ 
ter to be deprived of a franchise whose beneficial exercise they 
have been compelled to renounce. 


7 


Your petitioners will not rely upon their own description. 
These agencies were described by Calhoun when he said: “ It 

would seem impossible to form a scheme more perfectly calculated 
to annihilate the control of the people over the Presidential election 
and vest it in those who live, or expect to live, on the government.” 
And your petitioners quote the solemn utterances of Benton, who 
says: 


“ I have seen the capacity of the people tried at many points, and always found it 
equal to the demands of the occasion. Two other trials now going on remain to be de¬ 
cided to settle the question of that capacity. 1. The election of President, and whether 
that election is to be governed by the virtue and intelligence of the people, or to become 
the spoil of intrigue and corruption. 2. The sentiment of political nationality; and 
whether it is to remain coextensive with the Union, or divide into sectionalism, ending 
in hate, alienation, separation, and civil war. 

“An irresponsible body, chiefly self-constituted, and mainly dominated by profes¬ 
sional office-seekers and office-holders, have usurped the election of President (for the 
nomination is the election so far as the party is concerned), and always making it with a 
view to their own profit in the monopoly of office and plunder. 

“ Two diseases beset confederate republics—corrupt election of Chief Magistrate when 
elective; sectional contention when interest or ambition are at issue. Our confederacy 
is now laboring under both diseases; and the body of the people, now as always honest 
in sentiment and patriotic in design, remain unconscious of the danger and even become 
instruments in the hands of their destroyers. If what is written in these chapters shall 
open their eyes to these dangers and rouse them to the resumption of their electoral priv¬ 
ileges, then this View will not have been written in vain.” 

Your petitioners have already alluded to the motives controlling 
appointments under many previous administrations. In view of 
the ease with which political machinery of parties can be man¬ 
aged, it is both the interest of the Congressman and Executive to 
select for offices men whose rough and reckless habits are better 
suited to run primaries and conventions than for the proper per¬ 
formance of the duties of their office, and all suggestions of civil 
service reform are laughed at by them, for they know that the 
merit most pleasing to their superior is that which tends most to 
his benefit. In other words, they can do better service in running 
the machine which affords the Congressman or President a nomina¬ 
tion, which is the stepping-stone to an election, than that at the 
official desk. This alike is the reason why the spoils of victory are 
taken from the hands of the Executive, why the civil service is 
bad, why we are denied honest Congressmen and honest office¬ 
holders, and why every effort at civil service reform has been a 
failure. 


8 


Your petitioners desire to express their obligations to the Pres¬ 
ident of the United States for his order to prevent his subordinates 
from participating in caucuses and conventions. The storm of 
opposition it aroused, and its ultimate failure, proved conclusively 
where the power of appointment is really lodged. The President 
was willing to sacrifice the political service of his appointees, but 
the Congressmen and Senators were not. The President did not 
want a renomination, but many of the Congressmen do; and this 
rule, which deprived them of the assistance of subordinates who 
were indebted to them for their appointment, in procuring renomi¬ 
nations or increasing their personal influence, was fought to the bit¬ 
ter end. As your petitioners, nearly all of whom were in sympathy 
with the President in his efforts to assert his independence for their 
benefit, could not manifest their opinions within their respective 
parties, the monopolists and the politicians in the conventions 
drove the President from his position. 

Your petitioners find that their attention can be given at one 
election to but one class of questions or issues—those which affect 
your petitioners in every section.; those which relate to the currency 
used by all in their exchanges; the liberty which all have in com¬ 
mon, and the commerce and labor which all are compelled to 
undergo or participate in. Only laws which operate equally in 
Maine and Oregon can form the bond of party organizations, and 
at one election we are compelled to vote with reference only to the 
general principles underlying legislation. We have special interests 
of great importance, but these are beyond the control of the public 
voice. The onerous public legislation covering a Southern State 
will not arouse much sympathy in the North; the appropriation 
voted for a railroad corporation at the dictation of a lobby will not 
be scanned with care when vaster interests are at stake. Questions 
less than these of paramount character, which establish a common 
bond of sympathy between all of your petitioners, must be left to 
the irresponsible and discretionary exercise of our public officials. 
If irresponsible, they may betray without punishment. We feel 
that the proper exercise of this discretionary authority , ivhose immense 
range arouses within us a feeling of amazement , can be insured only by 
the selection of personal qualities r suited to resist the pressure of co> - 
rupt influences. These are subjects identified only with the indi¬ 
vidual, and your petitioners can hold no party responsible for the 


9 


acts of an individual. All parties are the same in this respect, as a 
bitter experience has taught us. Yet upon the exercise of this dis¬ 
cretionary power depends the degree of favor accorded to these 
special interests, which are seeking public rewards, and whose in¬ 
fluence is the source of our complaints. In order to select the 
qualities most suited to their corrupt designs, such agencies will 
devote their most active efforts to control the machinery of parties. 
The selection of the candidate is the selection of his qualities. The 
action of the convention which makes it closes the discussion upon 
that point, so far as the party is concerned; and when the same 
methods of selection are employed by each organization, and the 
same influences prevail in each, the questions related to the honesty 
and capacity of candidates and covering discretionary power are 
finally settled before a ballot is cast at the election. 

Your petitioners set forth the further grievance, that in two- 
thirds of the Congressional districts of the Union, a nomination of 
the leading party is already the election. Why, then, should your 
petitioners be subjected to the expense of an election when the 
election has already merged in the nomination , and the candidate 
selected by the leading party, with folded arms, is watching the 
masses move to the polls, on the day of election, in the perform¬ 
ance of a useless function, whose solemn surroundings alone ob¬ 
scure its absurdity ? In every essential aspect the election has 
already been held, and the act of your petitioners, attended by 
expensive paraphernalia, would seem to be of no value except as 
a certificate of the fact. Our bribery laws, as applied to elections 
under these circumstances, must seem absurd, when the money 
power here controls both the nomination and election through in¬ 
trigue within the political convention. The interests of the mono¬ 
polist and office-holding class lead them to combine and centralize 
their power just where the best opportunity is open to them. 

Your petitioners, mindful of their rights, have observed the dan¬ 
gerous functions performed by parties acting outside of the two 
leading, regular or permanent organizations. As the consent of 
the people can be inferred from the action of no number less than a 
majority, some method should be established which insures a choice 
of officials by the concurrence of that number. In four out of five in¬ 
stances, where less than a majority have concurred in the choice of 
the person declared elected President, it may be safely affirmed that 


10 


if the contest had been limited to the two persons having the 
highest popular vote, the candidate who actually received the plu¬ 
rality vote would have received the smaller number. The vote cast 
for Crawford defeated Jackson in 3824; that for Birney reduced 
Clay’s below Polk’s in 1844; that for Van Buren reduced Cass’s 
below Taylor’s in 1848; and in 1800, the Democratic vote for 
Breckinridge reduced the vote for Douglas below that of Lincoln. 
The relative positions of the leading parties have been changed in 
every instance but one, where third parties worthy the name have 
been in the field. The political strength of each party in the nation 
is so nearly equal that in any election, since electors have been 
chosen by the people, six per cent, drawn to a third organization 
would be sufficient to place in a minority those who otherwise 
would form a majority. All the power, therefore, which should be 
exercised by a majority is subject to the will of less than six per 
cent, of the voters. Here, again, the will of the people is liable to 
be defeated at any time by the tricks of trading politicians, who 
put before them “ dummy ” candidates to attract votes from the 
real issues of the contest. 

Your petitioners believe that third parties are a direct protest 
against the system of caucuses and conventions, which deny their 
adherents an expression within the leading organizations; a direct 
protest against the exclusive few who seize, through this machinery, 
upon the reins of government, and devote it to selfish purposes. If 
a body of men are allowed full expression within a party, where 
votes are fairly counted, and fail to control it, they cannot hope to 
enlist a sufficient number to defeat the leading parties at the elec¬ 
tion. If nine factors represented the voting population of the nation, 
five would be necessary to control, while three only would be a ma¬ 
jority of the five. Yet, as the politicians, though we may outnum¬ 
ber them ten to one, still control through this party machinery, 
many are compelled to go outside for relief. 

The intimate relation of these political bodies to the patronage 
of the Executive was recognized at an early date. Jackson in 1829 
recommended such an amendment to the Constitution as would re¬ 
move all intermediate agency in the election of President, and 
would insure the disqualification of Congressmen to receive office 
from a President in whose election they have had an official agency, 
in order that the President might approach the solemn responsibil- 


11 


ities of his office uncommitted to any other course than the strict 
line of constitutional duty. This suggestion was repeated in every 
message. It was followed up by Messrs. Benton and Gilmer, who at¬ 
tempted to furnish a system of elections which would render unnec¬ 
essary the holding of political conventions. 

These proposed remedies, though advocated by Calhoun, B. M. 
Johnson, ex-President Van Buren, Mr. Hayne, and others equally 
prominent in our historical annals, your petitioners believe would 
prove insufficient. Both plans suggested two elections, the second 
to be held between the two candidates having the most votes at the 
first one. Benton’s plan proposed a choice by the people, while 
Gilmer’s preserved the electoral representation of the States. 

Your petitioners believe that the necessity which always divides 
the masses into two equally matched parties, one for and one against 
the action of the government, would still exist. And under either 
of the plans, with five candidates dividing the votes of one organi¬ 
zation and only two dividing the votes of the other, the two persons 
of the same party would probably receive the greatest numbers of 
votes at the first election, leaving the opposing party entirely un¬ 
represented at the second. To avoid such a contingency the politi¬ 
cal machinery which it was intended to supplant would be employ¬ 
ed to centralize the votes of each party upon one candidate before 
the first election, and thus avoid the danger of party defeat. 

An amendment designed to serve the ends sought for by your 
petitioners has been devised and is attached to this petition. A 
due regard for the traditions of our Republic admonishes us to build 
as our fathers have designed. The electoral college as at present 
constituted can never be a deliberative body. Deliberation, un¬ 
marked by political prejudice, can be had only within the respective 
parties. 

Unbiased by partisan prejudice, educated by the press, and 
guided by the opinions of the leaders of sentiment rather than of 
political managers, the people are amply competent to judge of the 
characters of men, and would readily acquiesce in the judgment of 
those whose patriotism and honesty they have learned to trust. 
Your petitioners suggest that the President be nominated by one- 
third of the members composing any State Legislature, which nom¬ 
ination shall be made by petition of such members, the petition 
stating either that the person is nominated for the “ First Presi- 


12 


dential canvass,” or the “ Second Presidential canvass; ” the votes 
for persons nominated for one canvass to be counted separately 
from those nominated for the other, and the result to be declared 
accordingly. 

The plan will be readily understood by supposing that Tilden 
had been nominated by the Democrats of the Legislatures of New 
York, New Jersey, and Michigan ; Hendricks by those of Indiana 
and Iowa. On the opposite side, Blaine is presented by the Repub¬ 
lican legislators of Maine, Ilayes by those of Ohio, Conkliug by 
those of New York. The Democratic candidates are nominated for 
the “ First canvass,” and the Republicans for the “ Second canvass.” 
An election is held, with the following result: First canvass— 
Tilden, 2,045,000; Hendricks, 2,320.000. Second canvass—Conkling, 
1,500,000; Blaine, 1,020,000; Ilayes, 1,450,000. As no person re¬ 
ceives a majority, the person nominated for the “ First canvass n 
and the person nominated for the “Second canvass,” having the 
highest numbers of votes, will contest the second election. Under 
Benton’s plan it would have been Tilden and Hendricks, those gen¬ 
tlemen having the highest numbers, without regard to the canvass. 

The primary or first election in this case will be fairly conducted, 
and every Republican and Democrat will be restricted to one vote. 
He may not vote as often as caucuses are held, whatever party 
may call them. 

Your petitioners believe that by means of such a system they 
could devote their attention almost solely to the selection of honest 
and competent men at the first election, well knowing that a vote 
for the person deemed best fitted for the station could not contrib¬ 
ute in any way to party defeat. Given this power, they would be 
able to protect themselves from aggrandizing monopolies, would 
restore purity of the civil service, and elevate the tone of political 
discussion to the high standard of statesmanship. 

The expense of the first election, substituted in place of a vast 
system of primaries and conventions, is hardly a legitimate subject 
of controversy. The cost of registering voters in the cities of the 
country would nearly equal its expense, and a sum scaled from offi¬ 
cial salaries equal to political assessments now ostensibly paid to 
run party machinery, to say nothing of vast franchise privileges, to 
protect which the monopolists contribute, would pay the expenses 
of many elections. Bribery at elections would be ineffective, for 


13 


no candidate employing that means of procuring office would receive 
the approval of the masses, and candidates disposed to bribery 
would be dismayed when confronted with the necessity of purchas¬ 
ing, not a small balance of power, but nearly an absolute majority. 

Your petitioners believe that this proposal is not revolutionary. 
The changes from the present system, though important in their 
effects, are not so great as they seem. Responsible bodies dis¬ 
place irresponsible conventions; several candidates are presented 
by each party instead of one ; the people vote direct for candidates 
instead of for delegates; one caucus is held for all instead of one for 
each party ; legally qualified voters only may vote but once, and all 
except such are excluded ; the sense of each party is ascertained by 
a separation of their respective votes in the canvass the same as if 
two caucuses or elections were held; as all shades of sentiment 
receive an expression within their party at the nominating election, 
there is no occasion for third candidates at the final election. Fully 
protected in their rights by all the election laws, your petitioners 
would, under such a system, attend the nominating election in the 
same or even larger numbers than they are now found at general 
elections. 

Your petitioners have adverted to the disadvantages under which 
they labor in securing an expression of their will in the respective 
Congressional districts. In upwards of 220 districts out of 203, the 
majority for one party or the other is upwards of 1,000, year after 
year; and many of your petitioners who are in the minority in these 
districts have long since tired of attending elections at which their 
candidates are certain to be defeated. Minority representation can 
afford them no relief, for that system cannot be applied where 
only one person is to be chosen from a district. Your petitioners, 
therefore, after mature reflection, would respectfully suggest a 
remedy for this state of affairs whose enactment into law would se¬ 
cure them real representation. This remedy is substantially the 
same as that for Presidential elections. Congress should provide for 
two boards, elected by minority representation, so that each board 
would represent a different party, through which candidates could 
be presented by the people, such boards merely to certify to the fact 
that such candidates are presented. The votes for Democrats 
named through the Democratic board, and those for Republicans 
named by the board representing that party, could be separately 



canvassed and the sense of each party ascertained and declared, al¬ 
though all the votes are cast at the same election. The first elec¬ 
tion would take the place of the primary, and the second would de¬ 
cide between the two persons, of opposite parties. If any person 
received a majority at the first election, the second would be unnec¬ 
essary. 

Under such a system of elections, your petitioners, intent upon 
honest government, if in a minority would not refuse to make a 
choice between political opponents, any of whom if nominated would 
certainly be elected, rather than to throw away their votes upon 
their political friends, any one of whom if nominated must be 
defeated at the subsequent election. Hence honesty and capacity 
and the real principles of the persons named as candidates would 
govern the choice of your petitioners, and they would no longer 
feel compelled to support a candidate, however unworthy, only 
because he wore the livery of their party. Party contests would be 
limited to doubtful districts; and in all others the minority would 
have a genuine representation. 

Your petitioners, who are mechanics, merchants, farmers, laborers 
and tradesmen, have no interest in politics, in parties or in patronage; 
and seek only the opportunity of giving their votes for honest men 
wherever found—men who will represent the true principles of good 
government. We seek to make our officials responsible to us and 
and not to the agencies now controlling political machinery, with¬ 
out whose assistance political advancement is now impossible. 

And we express our confidence that when candidates owe their 
nominations to us, public advancement will be the reward of honor¬ 
able performance of public duty; and not as now, due to the ac¬ 
tivity and number of office-holders and agencies enlisted in the 
interest of candidates whose influence procures or protects their 
appointments or privileges. Nor can we see an end to taxation 
until the present system is destroyed; for through it, each candidate 
seeking political advancement measures his hopes of success by the 
number of stipendiaries enlisted in his cause, which number he will 
aim constantly to increase, and thereby cause a growing demand 
upon the resources of your petitioners. 

The Congressional caucus lias been destroyed, but from this 
evil no relief can been had without the interference of your honor¬ 
able bodies. We have manifested our disapproval of this system 


15 


by every means in our power. Driven from our own parties, 
we have formed immense third organizations; we have always 
voted as between the two candidates presented for our suffrages, 
the more honest of the two, the choice of evils; but we realize that 
though representing a vast majority, our influence in the govern¬ 
ment is small indeed; and we shall ever be an impotent factor 
until your honorable body shall grant our petition and give free 
scope to our will by permitting us to select from the thousands of 
our fellow-citizens, instead of from only two persons, those most 
worthy of our free suffrages. 

Your petitioners submit that they should not be subjected to the 
stigma resulting from official mismanagement until they are per¬ 
mitted the fullest latitude in the selection of their agents; and 
popular government exists in fact as well as in name. 


OUTLINE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IN RE¬ 
LATION TO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. 

I. A person may be nominated for President or Vice-President, by petition signed by one- 
third of tlio members of any Stato Legislature. Such petition shall state that the persons named 
therein are nominated for the “ First Presidential Canvass ” or the “ Second Presidential Can¬ 
vass,” as the case may be, and, with the certificate of the Governor of the State, attesting that the 
persons signing such petition compose one-third of the Stato Legislature, shall be transmitted to 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and bo by him published. A person nominated for 
both Canvasses shall elect in which Canvass his vote shall be counted. 

II. The President and Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the peoplo. The per' 
son having tho highest number of votes for President, shall bo President, if such number be a ma¬ 
jority. If no person havo such majority, then a second election shall be held between tho person 
nominated for the “ First Canvass ” and the person nominated for the “ Second Canvass,” having 
tho highest numbers of votes; and the person then having tho highest number of votes for 
President, shall be President. 


THE BEST OFT FOR YOUNG MEN. 



ELECTIVE FRANCHISE 


— IN THE — 


UNITE D S TATES 

By Duncan C. McMillan. 


Discusses the Plan presented in these pages in detail; contains a Thorough Ex¬ 
amination into the Machinery and Principles of Parties; traces the 
Growth of Tweed’s Ring, and treats of the various Systems of Election 
proposed by Senators Morton, Buckalew, Benton, and others. 

PRICE, in Cloth, OJNTE DOLLAR. 


G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, 

_182 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YOEH. 

The adoption of this system would render the political caucus unnecessary, while the conven¬ 
tion is divested of irresponsible and dangerous characteristics. No plan less comprehensive can 
be pennanently satisfactory.—[New York Express. 

Every young man should read it carefully. It is full of honest desire and suggestive thought — 
[Indianapolis Journal. 

McMillan’s plan deserves an honorable place and a respectful bearing.—[Library Table, N. Y. 

Fairly and impassionately written, and contains timely hintsand criticisms.—[Chicago Tribuno. 

Deserves a careful perusal, and would do excellent service as a political tract.—[Hart ord Post. 

Discusses questions Ol highest practical importance to every citizen at tho present time. Tlio 
topics are ably handled and furnish students of economic science suggestions upon the great prob¬ 
lems of government.—[National Journal of Education. 

The arguments are ably urged.—[Boston Transcript. 

A vigorous and energetic protest against the evils which surround universal suffrage.—[St. Louis 
Globe-Democrat. 

The work 13 an exceedingly practical one, and tho views of the author are worthy the perusal of 
all who desire to see a proper disposition made of the important subject of Presidential elections — 
[Washington Union. 

It suggests several important changes in our systems and backs up the suggestions with a good 
deal of clear logic.—[Boston Traveller. 

Every one who take^ interest in tho political improvement of this country must commend Mr 
McMillan’s publication as tending to focus thought on this important subject. He has performed 
an excellent public service.—[New York Graphic. 

One of the best, if not the altogether best examination of the subject that I have yet seen — 
[David A. McKnight, Author of the “ Eleotoral System in the United States.” 

For Sale by all Booksellers. 




















9 






r 














$ 


s 












/ 


> 










t 




